SC verdict on Sutlej Yamuna Link canal issue on Tuesday | punjab | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 21, 2017-Monday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

SC verdict on Sutlej Yamuna Link canal issue on Tuesday

The court is hearing a contempt application the Haryana government filed after Punjab returned the land acquired for the project to its owners. This despite the top court’s decision in November last year that Punjab could not have unilaterally terminated the water-sharing agreement.

punjab Updated: Jul 11, 2017 00:10 IST
HT Correspondent
A view of the SYL canal where former PM Indra Gandhi laid the foundation stone in Patiala district.
A view of the SYL canal where former PM Indra Gandhi laid the foundation stone in Patiala district.(HTFile Photo)

A division bench of the Supreme Court is likely to give its verdict on the contentious Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal issue on Tuesday.

The court is hearing a contempt application the Haryana government filed after Punjab returned the land acquired for the project to its owners. This despite the top court’s decision in November last year that Punjab could not have unilaterally terminated the water-sharing agreement.

The Punjab assembly in 2004 had passed termination of the agreements act to withdraw from the pact. A Presidential reference was made to the SC on the issue, which the court answered in negative.

The state government also has petitioned before the apex court the verdict of November was not an order to construct the canal but a suggestion on Presidential reference, which was sought after the state legislature passed a law in 2004. The SC has been insisting on construction of the canal.

Punjab had in February said the canal land returned to the landowners could not be recovered and it has been requesting the SC to ask the Centre to try to bring the states on the negotiating table. On the insistence of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), top officers of Punjab and Haryana met the Union water resources secretary in April but the meeting’s outcome was not known. The SC has repeatedly said it didn’t intend to revisit the facts and issues already adjudicated upon.